&  ii- 


^^.    v'y    'W 


►      ■     ^ 

^^             WW.. 

O;^ 


^V^ 

V''^'^'- 

. '? 

'  -'T 

?.^ 

0 

i^ 

* 
3 

!•■'-' 

«v 

K>'-. 

'\ 

^ 

7  '  .  i 

-i 

!> 

'v..'  • 

^ 

.,    r 

M 

•', 

Si 

L' 

r:-ww" 


VW^^ 


^■-  c;, 


.'^^'^•' 


Miscellaneous  TcTim"^^^^'^^^'! 


Va\ 


o 


L 


't  -1 


4 


<f 


"review 


OP 


Dr.  R.  J.  BRECKINRIDGE'S  LETTERS, 


ON 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  RULING  ELDERS. 


FROM  THE 


PRINCETON  REVIEW, 


APRIL,   18t4. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

PRINTED    BY     JOHN     T.    ROBINSON. 

1844. 


/•  -i 


THE  ELDER   QUESTION. 


It  is  truly  mortifying  that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  at 
this  period  of  her  history,  instead  of  "leaving  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  going  on  unto  perfec- 
tion," should  be  employed  in  the  juvenile  task  of  laying 
again  the  foundation  of  the  "doctrine  of  laying  on  of 
hands."  We  are  utter  disbelievers  in  the  vaunted  efficacy 
of  a  perpetual  recurrence  in  the  spirit  of  sceptical  inquiry, 
to  the  first  principles  of  our  organization.  The  distinc- 
tive features  of  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  govern- 
ment have  been  known  and  settled  for  ages  ;  and  yet  there 
are  some  who  would  persuade  us  that  all  who  have  hither- 
to embraced  this  system  have  used  it,  as  common  people  do 
their  watches,  without  comprehending  at  all  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  its  construction ;  and  who  seek  therefore  to  divert 
the  energy  of  the  church  from  reaching  forward  unto  those 
things  that  are  before,  and  waste  it  in  the  re-examination 
of  foundations  that  were  long  since  well  and  securely  laid. 

It  is  a  great  evil,  when  a  church,  instead  of  acting  with  the 
genial  vigour  of  a  well  settled  faith  in  the  established  prin- 
ciples of  her  organization,  is  agitated  with  a  perpetual  in- 
quiry as  to  what  her  principles  really  are.  If  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  this  country  after  a  century  of  well- 
defined  practice  under  a  written  constitution,  needs  to  be 
instructed  in  such  elementary  matters,  as  who  ought  to  per- 
form the  work  of  ordination  to  the  ministry,  and  what  con- 
stitutes a  quorum  of  her  ecclesiastical  courts,  we  see  no  rea- 
son to  hope  for  any  progress  in  all  time  to  come.  If  these 
matters  have  not  been  already  settled  beyond  a  rea- 
sonable doubt,  we  see  not  how  they  can  now  be  settled, 
so  as  to  prevent  them  from  becoming  the  means  of  future 
agitation. 

It  forms  a  part  of  the  mortifying  character  of  the  present 
agitation  of  our  church,  that  it  should  touch  upon  ques- 
tions that  are  in  themselves  of  such  little  moment.  How 
many  members  shall  be  required  to  constitute  a  quorum  of 
a  Presbytery,  and  whether  among  the  designated  number 
there  shall  be  one  or  more  ruling  elders  are  questions,  that 


involving  no  principle  of  abstract  truth  or  necessary  order, 
can  be  determined  only  by  general  considerations  of  expe- 
diency. We  know  not  what  incessant  and  powerful  ap- 
peals to  some  of  the  worst  principles  of  human  nature 
may  effect  in  the  end,  but  we  are  sure  that  no  calm  and 
considerate  argument  will  ever  succeed  in  convincing  the 
sober  judgment  of  the  ministers  and  elders  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  that  our  fathers  in  establishing  the  quorum 
clause  in  onr  constitution,  or  their  successors  in  their  uni- 
form practice  under  it,  had  any  intention  to  encroach  upon 
the  rights  of  the  elders,  or  diminish  in  any  degree  their  im- 
portance, Tiie  notion  that  the  intent  or  the  efl'ect  of  the 
rule,  or  of  the  practice  under  it,  is  to  establish  a  hierarchy, 
or  to  take  the  initial  step  towards  so  monstrous  a  conclu- 
sion, is  simply  farcical ;  or  at  least  it  would  be  so,  if  no  other 
means  than  dispassionate  argument  were  employed  in  sup- 
port of  it.  Nor  do  we  suppose  that  an  attempt  to  show 
that  our  fathers  or  ourselves  in  maintaining  tliat  ordina- 
tion to  the  office  of  preaching  tlie  word,  and  administer- 
ing the  sacraments  should  be  performed  by  those  who 
have  themselves  been  authorized  to  discharge  these  func' 
tions,  did  really  disclose  an  implicit  belief  that  ordination 
was  a  mystical  charm,  would  be  deemed  worthy  a  serious 
thought,  were  this  attempt  made  in  the  simple  sincerity  of 
honest  argument.  That  the  whole  Presbyterian  church  of 
this  and  other  lands  have  been  for  ages  devoted  to  a  super- 
stitious belief,  and  need  now  to  have  some  one,  in  the  plen- 
itude of  his  gifts,  declare  unto  tliem  the  true  meaning  of 
that  which  they  have  ignorantly  worshipped,  is  too  ])re- 
posterous  for  grave  argument.  It  will  be  impossible 
by  any  ingenuity  of  argument  to  persuade  the  church, 
that  the  belief  that  ruling  elders  ought  not  to  impose 
hands  in  ordination  is  a  superstition,  or  that  it  involves 
the  injurious  intents  and  consequences  which  are  charged 
upon  it.  The  question  is  in  itself  of  trilling  moment. 
It  is  a  matter  merely  of  fitness  and  propriety.  If  any 
Presbytery  had  seen  fit  quietly  to  depart  from  presby- 
terian  usage  in  this  matter,  no  one  we  presume  would 
have  thought  it  expedient  to  call  their  conduct  into  ques- 
tion, for  no  one  believes  that  the  act  of  ordination  is  ren- 
dered invalid  by  the  supererogatory  addition  of  the  hands  of 
the  ruling  elders.  But  when  it  is  claimed  that  all  Presby- 
teries ought  to,  and  shall  ordain  in  this  manner,  upon  the 
ground  that  there  is  no  distinction  of  order  between  the 
bishop  and  the  ruling  elder,  the  question  becomes  one  of  prin- 
ciple, and  we  are  called  upon  to  vindicate  the  ancient  faith 


5 

of  the  Presbyterian  church  when  thus  attacked  through  a 
.proposed  change  in  one  of  its  ceremonial  usages. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  consideration  that  the  present  agita- 
tion of  these  questions  has  arisen  from  no  practical  griev- 
ance under  the  operation  of  our  system.  No  church  has 
complained  that  its  interests  have  been  shghted  at  meetings 
of  Presbytery  held  without  the  presence  of  ruling  elders; 
no  elders  have  complained  that  at  such  meetings  advan- 
tage has  been  taken  of  their  absence  to  encroach  upon  their 
rights  and  privileges ;  nor  has  any  elder  complained  that 
having  offered  to  take  part  in  the  ceremony  of  ordination 
he  was  hindered  therein,  and  thus  debarred  from  what  he 
deemed  a  rightful  exercise  of  his  authority.  If  the  germ 
of  a  hierarchical  establishment  is  contained  in  the  interpre- 
tation which  the  church  has  always  given  to  the  quorum 
clause  in  her  constitution,  it  is  strange  that  this  germ  should 
have  remained  so  long  undeveloped.  If  the  hierarcliy  of 
this  rule  has  continued  to  this  day  constructive  only,  it 
might  have  been  permitted  to  slumber  in  its  potential  form 
until  it  had  passed  into  actual  existence.  And  if  the  con- 
finement of  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  rite  of  ordina- 
tion to  preaching  elders,  has  resulted  as  yet  in  no  further 
encroachments  of  the  spirit  of  priestly  domination  from 
which  it  is  said  to  spring,  it  might,  we  think,  be  safely 
trusted  a  little  longer.  From  the  days  of  the  Reformation 
until  now,  every  Presbyterian  church  of  which  we  have 
any  knowledge  has  ordained  its  preachers  by  the  hands 
of  preaching  elders ;  and  though  Milton,  in  the  disordered 
times  of  the  English  commonwealth,  complained  that 
"new  Presbyter  was  only  old  Priest  writ  large,"  it  cer- 
tainly is  not  among  the  Presbyterians  of  any  age  or  land, 
that  we  are  to  look  for  the  reign  of  priestly  usurpation. 
The  evils  complained  of  in  the  practice  of  our  church  are 
purely  abstract.  They  have  never  yet  taken  on  a  concrete 
form.  Instead  of  the  voice  of  complaint  from  parties  who 
feel  themselves  to  be  aggrieved,  we  have  only  the  voices  of 
those  who  are  endeavouring  to  make  the  ruling  elders  feel, 
that  in  their  ignorant  simplicity  they  have  long  been  im- 
posed upon  without  knowing  it,  and  that  this  imposition  is 
but  the  prelude  to  further  strides  of  priestly  power  if  it  be 
not  met  with  timely  resistance.  It  is  a  singular  feature  in 
the  championship  of  the  cause  of  the  ruling  elders,  that 
the  most  difficult  part  of  the  duty  of  the  champion  consists 
in  persuading  the  body  to  be  defended  that  they  have  been 
ill  used  and  are  likely  to  be  still  further  trampled  upon. 


It  remains  to  be  seen  wliether  the  valour  exhibited  in  such 
a  cause  will  meet  witli  its  reward  or  not. 

In  the  pamphlet,  the  title  of  which  we  have  placed  at  the 
head  of  this  article,  we  have  the  substance  of  two  argu- 
ments upon  the  ordination  and  quorum  question,  delivered 
before  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  by  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge, 
a  conspicuous  defender  of  wiiat  iie  deems  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  Ruling  l^^lders.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
the  General  Assembly  of  1S42  decided  by  a  unanimous  vote 
that  it  was  not  withm  the  intent  of  our  constitutional  rule 
upon  that  subject,  that  ruling  elders  should  join  in  the  im- 
position of  hands  in  the  rite  of  ordination.  This  vote  was 
subsequently  re-considered,  and  the  subject  was  referred  to 
the  next  Assembly.  The  last  Assembly  after  a  full  argu- 
ment of  the  case  decided  by  a  vote  of  138  to  9  that  the 
constitution  of  our  churcli  does  not  authorize  ruling  elders 
to  impose  hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers.  This  was 
the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  church  expressed  through 
its  highest  court,  upon  a  question  not  hastily  brought  before 
it,  nor  hastily  decided.  If  the  church  is  capable  of  forming 
its  mind  upon  the  meaning  of  its  own  elementary  principles 
and  methods  of  proceeding,  we  have  that  mind  distinctly 
expressed  in  this  decision.  If  the  unanimous  decision  of 
one  Assembly,  and  the  nearly  unannnous  decision  of 
another,  after  a  year's  reflection,  ought  not  to  be  final,  so 
as  to  be  an  end  of  controversy,  we  can  discern  no  means  by 
which  such  a  question  can  ever  be  definitively  settled  ;  and 
for  aught  that  we  can  see,  our  church  must  be  reduced  to 
the  humiliating  attitude  of  ever  learning  what  her  own 
simplest  rudiments  are,  and  never  coming  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth. 

By  the  same  Assembly  it  was  decided  that  any  three 
ministers  regularly  convened  are  a  quorum  competent  to 
the  transaction  of  all  business.  A  resolution  to  this  effect 
was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  83  to  35,  nearly  three  fourths  of 
the  body  voting  in  the  affirmative.  Considering  the  true 
insignificance  of  the  question  at  issue,  affecting  not  in  any 
sense  the  constitution  of  a  presbytery,  but  only  the  defini- 
tion of  a  competent  quorum  of  the  body,  this  vote  was  suf- 
ficiently decided  to  set  the  question  at  rest.  We  shall  make 
ourselves  a  by-word  among  the  churches,  if  our  General 
Assembly  is  to  consume  its  time  year  alter  year  in  discuss- 
ing such  minor  points  of  order,  and  disgrace  its  character 
as  a  right-judging  and  stable  court  by  the  utterance  of  con- 
tradictory judgments  concerning  them.  Should  the  next 
Assembly  reverse  the  decision  of  the  last,  we  see  not  why 


the  succeeding  one  may  not  be  called  upon  again  to  review 
and  annul.  The  decision  of  our  highest  court  upon  a  ques- 
tion of  the  interpretation  of  the  constitution,  when  calmly 
and  decisively  pronounced,  ought  in  all  ordinary  cases,  to 
be  held  final  and  conclusive.  It  were  far  better  that  they 
who  are  dissatisfied  should  receive  the  interpretation  as  au- 
thoritative, and  seek  to  obtain  such  an  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution as  would  meet  their  wishes,  than  to  impeach  the 
wisdom  or  probity  of  the  Assembly  that  rendered  the  de- 
cision, and  attempt  to  move  succeeding  ones  to  set  it  aside. 
How  can  this  venerable  body  retain  its  hold  upon  the  con- 
fidence of  the  churches,  how  can  its  counsels  be  received 
with  respect,  or  its  mandates  obeyed  with  cheerful  zeal,  if 
upon  questions  affecting  the  interpretation  of  the  constitu- 
tion, the  decisions  of  one  year  are  continually  annulled  by 
those  of  the  next  ? 

Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  dissenting  from  the  decision  of 
these  two  questions  by  the  last  Assembly,  moved  the  Sy- 
nod of  Philadelphia,  at  their  meeting  in  October  last,  to 
adopt  two  several  minutes  condemning  the  resolutions  of 
the  Assembly,  and  proposing  to  the  next  Assembly  to  re- 
peal these  obnoxious  resolutions  and  adopt  others  in  their 
stead  of  a  contrary  tenor.  The  Synod  refused  to  adopt  the 
proposed  minutes,  whereupon  Dr.  Breckinridge  gave  notice 
of  an  appeal  or  complaint  to  be  taken  to  the  next  General 
Assembly,  in  the  trial  of  which  appeal  or  complamt  he 
should  insist  upon  the  exclusion  of  the  Synod  from  the 
right  of  voting  upon  any  question  connected  therewith. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  the  General  Assembly  enter- 
tain this  protest  against  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia under  the  character  of  an  appeal  or  complaint,  and 
mstitute  the  proceedings  directed  in  such  cases,  the  inferior 
judicatory  must  be  debarred  from  the  right  to  vote  upon 
any  question  connected  with  the  issue  of  the  matter.  And 
this  of  itself  would  be  sufficient  to  show  that  this  was  not 
a  case  in  which  either  an  appeal  or  complaint  could  with 
propriety  be  taken,  and  that  the  proper  course  for  the  As- 
sembly to  pursue  would  be  to  dismiss  it  at  once  from  consi- 
deration as  irrelevant.  If  this  appeal  is  to  be  ^o  construed  as 
to  bring  up  the  merits  of  the  main  questions  for  argument  and 
decision,  then  surely  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  ought  to  be 
upon  the  floor.  The  questions  at  issue,  not  having  relation 
to  the  wise  and  just  administration  of  law,  but  to  the  deter- 
mination of  what  the  law  itself  is,  can  with  propriety  be  set- 
tled only  by  the  united  voice  of  the  whole  church.  The  pre- 
posterous character  of  this  appeal  may  be  sufficiently  illus- 


8 

trated  by  a  very  supposablo  case.  The  Synod  of  Kentucky 
has  within  the  past  year  passed  a  resohition  to  the  effect 
that  in  their  judgment  ruling  elders  ought  to  impose  hands 
in  the  ordination  of  ministers.  Let  us  suppose  that  some 
member  of  the  minority  had  appealed  from  this  decision  to 
the  next  Assembly,  and  that  that  body  issue  this  appeal. 
It  is  possible  that  the  state  of  opinion  in  the  next  Assem- 
bly might  be  such  that  with  tlie  Synod  of  Kentucky  off 
the  floor,  as  it  must  be  in  the  trial  of  this  appeal,  the  deci- 
sion would  be  adverse  to  the  claim  set  up  on  behalf  of  the 
ruling  elders,  and  with  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  excluded 
upon  the  issue  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  appeal,  a  contrary  de- 
cision might  be  rendered.  We  should  thus  have  the  church 
perplexed  by  two  contradictory  decisions  of  the  same  ques- 
tion by  the  same  General  Assembly.  There  can  obviously 
be  no  fixed  law  or  settled  constitution  in  a  church,  if  its 
highest  court,  in  the  exercise  of  its  prerogative  as  an  inter- 
preter of  the  law  and  the  constitution,  may  thus  be  broken 
into  fractions  by  the  conversion  of  abstract  questions  into 
personal  wrongs. 

The  utter  irrelevancy  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  appeal  will 
be  further  apparent,  upon  a  moment's  consideration  of  the 
nature  of  the  decision  appealed  from.  The  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia passed  no  affirmative  resolution.  They  neither 
affirmed  or  denied  the  doctrines  put  forth  by  the  last  As- 
sembly. They  simply  refused  to  adopt  certain  private 
opinions  held  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  and  by  him  embodied 
in  writing  and  presented  for  their  acceptance.  Was  this 
refusal  a  personal  grievance  of  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  has 
a  right  to  complain  ?  The  Synod  pronounced  no  judgment 
on  the  soundness  or  unsoundness  of  his  opinions,  but  for 
reasons  which  they  have  not  seen  fit  to  assign,  they  de- 
clined to  entertain  them.  Who  was  injured  or  aggrieved  by 
this  declared  unwillingness  of  the  Synod  to  take  any  action 
in  the  matter  ?  A  delay  to  act,  may  in  some  cases,  where 
personal  rights  and  interests  are  involved,  be  unjust  and  in- 
jurious, but  in  this  matter  we  see  not  how  any  allegation  of 
wrong  can  be  sustained  except  upon  the  ground  that  Dr. 
Breckinridge  has  an  inherent  right  to  demand  that  any 
Synod  to  which  he  may  be  attached,  shall  entertain  what- 
ever opinions  he  may  see  fit  to  offer. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  upon  what  ground  other  than 
the  existence  of  some  such  unqualified  right,  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  could  have  been  expected  to  adopt  all  the 
opinions  that  were  on  this  occasion  offered  for  their  accep- 
tance.    In  the  minute  touching  the  quorum  question  which 


Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  with  a  profound  conviction  of  its  truth 
and  a  deep  sense  of  its  timeliness"  submitted  to  the  Synod, 
this  body  is  called  upon  among  other  things,  to  express  its 
belief  that  "the  principle  here  involved  is  practically  the 
question  between  an  aristocratical  hierarchy,  and  a  free 
Christian  commonwealth."  That  Dr.  Breckinridge  should 
believe  this  is  not  perhaps  surprising,  for  nothing  is  more 
common  than  for  men  who  find  themselves  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  community  to  which  they  belong,  to  manifest  a 
certain  extravagant  tendency  of  opinion  as  well  as  of  feeling. 
The  calmness  which  measures  the  exact  nature  and  precise 
relations  of  the  question  at  issue  is  not  to  be  expected  from  a 
man  who  feels  himself  to  be  in  the  position  of  Jeremiah,  when 
Jerusalem  was  beleaguered  by  the  army  of  aliens,  and  he  him- 
self imprisoned,  denounced  as  a  traitor,  and  threatened  with 
death,  unless  with  the  prophet's  doom  he  possesses  also  the 
prophet's  qualifications  and  supports.  That  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's convictions  and  feelings  should  run  out  into  great 
exaggeration,  that  matters  in  themselves  of  small  import 
should  be  magnified  into  vital  principles,  and  things  that 
are  totally  dissimilar  be  confounded  as  identical,  was  no- 
thing more  than  was  to  be  expected  from  any  uninspired 
man  occupying  the  position  in  wliich  he  feels  himself  to 
stand.  But  if  a  complaint  should  be  entertained  against  a 
deliberative  body,  because  they  refused  to  express  their 
belief,  that  an  economical  rule,  which  affirms  nothing 
respecting  the  constitution  of  a  Presbytery,  which  debars 
no  one  entitled  to  partake  in  its  deliberations  and  votes 
from  attendance  upon  its  meetings,  which  restrains  no  right 
and  curtails  no  privilege,  and  which  moreover  has  been  in 
practical  operation  for  more  than  a  century,  without  having 
led  to  any  evil,  involves  "  practically  the  question  between 
an  aristocratical  hierarchy  and  a  free  commonwealth," — this 
we  confess  would  surprise  us. 

There  are  other  methods  than  by  appeal  or  complaint  by 
which  these  questions  may  be  brought  before  the  next  As- 
sembly, under  such  a  form  as  may  provide  for  the  utterance 
of  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  entire  body  ;  and  in  some 
one  of  these  methods  we  suppose  they  will  be  brought  up 
and  discussed  anew.  We  have  therefore  examined  Dr. 
Breckinridge's  arguments  to  ascertain  what  new  light  they 
have  shed  upon  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat.  The  many 
imputations  of  bad  motives  and  sinister  designs  to  those 
who  are  of  a  contrary  opinion,  which  these  speeches  con- 
tain, as  well  as  their  confident  prophecies,  we  shall  pass 


10 

without  further  remark.  It  is  impossible  to  refute  a  sneer, 
a  vituperation,  or  a  prophecy.  Honest  deeds  are  the  only 
lit  answer  to  dishonest  words,  and  time,  in  the  absence  of 
miracles,  is  the  only  test  of  the  prophet.  But  what  they 
offer  of  argument  or  of  fact,  bearing  upon  the  proper  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject,  we  propose  briefly  to  examine. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  question,  who  ought  to  impose 
hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  we  do  not  find  that 
Dr.  Breckinridge  has  added  anything  to  the  argument  as 
delivered  before  the  last  Assembly.  The  whole  stress  of  this 
question  turns,  of  course,  upon  the  interpretation  to  be  given 
to  the  direction  contained  in  our  form  of  government,  that  /^ 

"  the  presiding  minister  shall  by  prayer,  and  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  according  to  the  apostohc 
example  solemnly  ordain  him  to  the  holy  oflice  of  the  gos- 
pel ministry  ;"  and  the  whole  force  of  the  reasoning,  upon 
the  side  of  those  who  would  change  our  established  customs, 
resides  in  the  assumption  that  the  presbytery  herein  named 
must  of  necessity,  mean  the  Presbytery  previously  defined 
as  consisting  of  ministers  and  ruUng  elders.     "  Presbytery 
imposes  hands  in  ordination  ;  elders  are  of  right  members 
of  that   body ;    therefore   they   must    necessarily   impose 
hands."     This  is  the  whole  argument.     To  assert  that  the 
Presbytery  that  imposes  hands  is  not  the  entire  Presbytery 
Dr.  Breckhiridge  declares  to  be  '•'  utter  folly."     "  Why,"  he 
asks,  "  would  you  stultify  our  fathers  ?     Did  they  first  define 
with  the  utmost  clearness  the  term  Presbytery  ;  then  invest 
the  body  so  called  with  the  power  of  ordaining  ministers  of 
the  word  ;  then  in  a  long  chapter  treating  of  this  ordination 
in  detail  use  the  word  a  dozen  times  in  its  defined  sense  ; 
and  then  without  motive  or  notice,  use  the  same  word  in 
the  same  chapter  and  touching  the  same  business,  in  a  sense 
not  only  inconsistent  with  their  own  definition  avjd  their  con- 
stant use  of  ir,  but  in  a  sense  flatly  contrary  to  both  ?     The 
thing  is  supremely  absurd."     Here  is  the  whole  case  on  the 
other  side.     And  we  are  willing  to  grant  that  the  prima 
facie  meaning  of  the  language  is  in  favour  of  the  interpre- 
tation here  given  to  it.     But  we  find  suflicient  evidence  that 
this  is  not  the  true  explanation,  in  the  historical  fact,  altogeth- 
er unexplained  and  inexplicable,  upon  tlie  contrary  hypothe- 
sis, that  in  the  actual  practice  of  our  church  with  few  and  un- 
important exceptions,  ministers  have  been  ordained  by  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  ministers.     The  language  of  the 
written  constitution,  it  is  aflirmed,  is  clear  and  explicit ;  it 
can  have  but  one  meaning;  to  attempt  to  give  it  any  other 
is  to  stultify  our  fathers,  is  utter  folly,  is  supremely  absurd. 


11 

How  then  came  it  to  pass  that  our  fathers  stultified  them- 
selves, for  it  is  undeniable  that  they  ordained  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  the  hands  of  preaching  elders  ?  If  the  language  of 
the  constitution  is  so  unequivocal  and  explicit  that  it  can, 
bear  but  one  meaning,  how  happens  it  that  it  was,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  understood  and  applied  in  a  different  mean- 
ing by  our  fathers  and  by  all  who  have  succeeded  them, 
even  until  the  present  day  ?  This  fact  is  in  truth  decisive 
of  the  controversy.  It  is  perfectly  futile  for  men  to  write 
and  speak,  however  plausibly  or  ably,  to  prove  that  certain 
languagecan  have  butone meaning, when  it  isanotoriousfact 
that  they  who  indited  that  language  and  the  whole  church 
after  them  for  a  period  of  fifty  years,  have  actually  attached 
to  it  a  different  meaning.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to 
explain  this  fact.  Our  fathers,  whom  we  are  urged  in  filial 
tenderness  not  to  stultify,  are  left  in  the  extraordinary  pre- 
dicament of  having  formally  laid  down  a  proposition  in 
terms  too  explicit  to  be  misunderstood,  and  then  instantly 
reduced  to  action  one  that  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  it, 
but  flatly  contrary  thereto ;  that  is,  through  incredible  ig- 
norance they  were  incapable  of  comprehending  their  own 
language,  or  through  wilful  dishonesty  they  perverted  it. 
We  have  said  that  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  this 
fact,  for  we  do  not  reckon  as  such  Dr.  Breckinridge's  argu- 
ment to  show  "  the  absurdity  of  talking  about  a  practice  that 
elders  should  not  impose  hands."  If  there  be  any  other 
man  than  one  of  straw  who  has  ever  talked  thus,  we  con- 
gratulate Dr.  Breckinridge  upon  his  triumphant  victory  over 
him.  Nor  do  we  consider  the  force  of  the  argument  drawn 
from  the  practice  of  the  fathers  of  our  church  as  impaired  in 
any  degree  by  Dr.  Breckinridge's  denial  that  the  practice  of 
ordaining  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  preaching  elders 
has  been  strictly  universal.  What  may  have  been  done  in 
one  or  two  western  Presbyteries,  of  late  years,  we  know  not, 
but  it  is  beyond  all  doubt,  that  at  the  establishment  of  our 
church,  the  practice  was  universal,  and  that  from  that  day 
to  this,  the  same  practice  has  prevailed  throughout  the  church. 
Under  such  circumstances  it  is  a  truly  desperate  attempt,  to 
show  that  the  framers  of  our  constitution  intended  to  estab- 
lish a  rule  which  was  flatly  contradicted  by  every  act  to 
which  that  rule  was  applicable.  The  plain  palpable  force 
of  the  concurrent  practice  of  the  church  from  its  commence- 
ment until  now  is  not  to  be  evaded.  It  is  conclusive  as  to 
the  meaning  which  our  fathers  who  established  the  constitu- 
tion attached  to  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery. 
Whether  these  words  can  properly  bear  this  meaning  or  not, 


12 

it  is  certain  that  this  was  the  meaning  Avhich  they  actually- 
affixed  to  them  when  they  inserted  them  in  the  Form  of 
Government ;  it  was  in  this  sense  that  the  church  received 
them  in  adopting  the  constitution ;  it  is  in  this  sense  that 
they  have  ever  since  been  interpreted ;  and  it  is  in  this  sense 
that  we  are  bound  by  them.  Of  what  avail  is  it,  in  dispar- 
agement of  this  conclusion,  to  tell  us  of  other  practices  of 
this  same  church,  such  as  the  disuse  of  the  office  of  deacon, 
and  the  establishment  and  tolerance  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
that  were  clearly  unconstitutional?  Who  needs  to  be 
taught  the  distinction  between  a  corrupt  practice  that  has 
crept  into  the  church,  however  insidiously,  at  some  definite 
period  of  her  liistory,  and  one  that  is  co-eval  with  its  consti- 
tution and  necessarily  interpretative  of  it  ? 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  thus  forced  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  constitution,  as  illustrated  by  the  practice  of 
its  founders,  derives  additional  strength  from  every  quarter. 
The  terms  of  the  constitution  are  not  only  susceptible  of  the 
interpretation  for  which  we  contend,  but  they  do  of  them- 
selves, when  properly  collated,  compel  us  to  adopt  this  as 
their  only  consistent  meaning.      More  than  one  instance 
occurs  in  our  Form  of  Government,  in  which  the  terms  Pres- 
bytery, and  member  of  the  Presbytery  are  used,  where  it  is 
apparent  that  ministers  only  are  meant,  the  duties  being 
such  as  could  be  properly  discharged  only  by  them.     Now 
we  maintain  that  in  the  ordination  service  itself,  there  is 
evidence  that  the  whole  ceremonial  part  of  the  ordination 
was  judged  to  be  a  Avork  which  could  be  fitly  performed 
only  by  ministers.     This  is  sufficiently  clear  from  the  direc- 
tion given  that  "  the  minister  who  presides  shall  first,  and 
afterward  all  the  other  members  of  the  Presbytery  in  their 
order,  take  him  by  the  right  hand,  saying,  in  words  to  this 
purpose.  We  give  you  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  take 
part  of  this  ministry  with  us."     Here  the  language,  all  the 
other  members  of  the  Presbytery,  is  express  and  peremptory, 
and  yet  it  is  obviously  limited  to  those  members  who  have 
already  partaken  of  the  ministry  to  which  the  candidate  is 
ordained.     Dr.  Breckinridge  indeed  asserts  that  this  argu- 
ment is  a  sophism,  which  chiefly  rests  on  an  error  of  fact ; 
and  the  error  of  fact  which  he  elaborately  overthrows 
consists    in    an    alleged    misapprehension    of    the    word 
ministry,  which  restricts  it  to  the  ministry  of  the  word. 
He  succeeds   in  proving   what  no  one   has  ever  denied, 
that  the  word  ministry,  in  its  etymological  sense,  means 
service,  and  minister  a  servant ;  but  he  has  not  succeeded 
in  finding  a  single  instance  in  our  form  of  government  where 


13 

these  words  are  employed  to  denote  any  other  kmd  of  ser- 
vice than  that  which  is  discharged  by  preacliing  elders. 
And  if  he  had  found  any  number  of  such  instances,  this 
sophism,  as  he  is  pleased  to  call  it,  would  still  remain  a 
strong  and  impregnable  argument  in  the  judgment  of  all 
who  can  rightly  appreciate  the  meainng  of  words.  As  if  to 
forestal  the  very  objection  raised,  this  salutation  defines 
with  the  utmost  precision  the  kind  of  ministry,  or  service 
intended.  They  who  take  the  newly  ordained  minister  by 
the  hand,  receive  him  not  to  the  ministry,  but  to  this  min- 
istry. What  ministry  ?  Beyond  all  dispute,  that  to  which 
the  candidate  is  receiving  his  ordination,  and  which  they 
who  take  him  by  the  hand  share  with  him.  And  is  this  the 
ministry  of  rule  over  the  church,  or  the  higher  ministry  in- 
clusive of  the  other,  of  preaching  the  word  and  adminis- 
tering the  sacraments  ?  When,  as  has  not  unfrequently  oc- 
curred, a  ruling  elder  has  been  ordained,  as  a  preacher,  to 
what  ministry  did  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  welcome 
him  ?  The  theory  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  would  demand  that 
ill  this  case  there  should  be  no  second  ordination  ;  and  the 
contrary  judgment  of  our  constitution  shows  conclusively 
that  whatever  may  be  in  other  respects  the  merits  of  his 
system,  it  is  not  the  presbyterianism  of  our  standards. 
When  one  who  is  already  a  ruling  elder  is  ordained  to  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  with  what  propriety  can  an  elder  of 
the  Presbytery,  welcome  him  "  to  take  part  of  this  ministry 
with  us  V^  It  is  clear  that  these  words  limit  the  perform- 
ance of  this  act  to  the  preaching  members  of  the  Presbytery  ; 
and  it  is  equally  clear  that  it  was  intended  that  they  who 
welcome  the  newly  ordained  minister  to  his  office  should 
be  they  who  induct  him  into  it. 

In  reply  to  the  question,  why  the  unrestricted  language, 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  is  employed,  if 
it  was  intended  that  it  should  be  limited  to  preaching  elders, 
we  answer  that  it  was  doubtless  for  the  same  reason  that 
when  it  is  said  that  "  a  member  of  the  Presbytery"  shall 
preach  a  sermon,  it  was  not  deemed  necessary  to  qualify 
the  designation  of  the  person  any  farther  than  was  done  by 
the  nature  of  the  duty  assigned.  There  never  was  a  Chris- 
tian church  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  excepting  the  Ana- 
baptists, the  Brownists,  and  such  like,  which  did  not  or- 
dain its  preachers  by  the  hands  of  those  who  were  them- 
selves preachers.  There  is  no  account  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  an  ordination  that  was  not  performed  by  those  who 
were  themselves  possessed  of  the  office  conferred.  It  was 
thus  that  all  ordinations  had  been  performed  in  the  Presby- 


14 

terian  church  of  our  own  country,  prior  to  the  adoption  of 
our  present  constitution.  Tlie  Form  of  Government  pre- 
viously recognised  as  authority  in  the  church,  that  drawn 
up  by  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines  and  adopted 
by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  expressly  limits  the  imposition 
of  hands  to  the  preaching  elders,  and  yet  it  speaks  familiar- 
ly elsewhere  of  ordination  as  performed  by  tlie  Presbytery, 
the  whole  Presbytery,  and  by  the  laying  on  of  the  liands 
of  the  Presbytery.  It  was  to  have  been  expected  that,  in 
settling  a  Form  of  Government  in  opposition  to  one  that 
had  previously  prevailed,  the  Westminster  Assembly  would 
be  precise  and  full  in  their  exposition  of  the  n)inor  details 
of  the  organization  established  ;  and  on  the  other  hand  it 
was  not  to  be  expected  that  in  drawing  up  our  briefer  di- 
rectory, its  authors  would  be  equally  careful  to  define  words 
and  phrases  which  had  been  settled  in  their  meaning  and 
usage  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years.  At  the  time  that  our 
standards  were  framed  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  who  ought 
to  lay  on  hands  in  ordination.  There  never  had  been  any 
question  respecting  this  matter.  It  was  altogether  natural, 
therefore,  that  in  compiling  the  rule  for  ordination,  the  au- 
thors of  it  should  quote  the  scriptural  phrase,  'Maying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  without  dreaming  of  the 
necessity  of  imposing  a  limit  upon  the  general  term  Pres- 
bytery, which  had  been  already  affixed  to  it  by  the  univer- 
sal consent  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  and  by  the  unbroken 
and  unquestioned  practice  of  our  own  church  in  ]mrticular. 
And  had  the  danger  of  misapprehension  occurred  to  them, 
they  doubtless  would  have  supposed  that  they  had  suffi- 
ciently guarded  against  it,  by  the  direction  subsequently 
given  that  '•  all  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  in  their 
order"  shall  utter  certain  words,  \vhich  words  would  be 
perfect  nonsense  coming  from  the  mouth  of  any  other  than 
a  preaching  elder.  If  the  ministry  to  which  the  preacfieris 
ordained  is  a  different  ministry  from  that  exercised  by  the 
ruling  elder,  then  it  is  evident  that  "  the  Presbytery,"  and 
"  all  the  members  of  the  Presbytery"  refer  exclusively  to 
preaching  elders. 

This  is  the  law  of  our  book,  consistent  with  itself,  with 
the  practice  of  the  church,  with  right  reason,  with  scriptural 
authority,  and  with  universal  custom.  Not  one  instance 
has  been  produced,  from  apostolic  example  or  from  the 
history  of  any  Presbyterian  church  that  has  ever  existed, 
in  which  a  man  was  ordained  to  the  oflicc  of  a  preacher, 
by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  those  who  were  not  them- 
selves preachers.    It  has  always  been  recognised  as  fitting 


16 

and  right,  that  the  distinction  which  exists  between  the 
teacher  and  the  ruler  should  be  made  apparent  in  the  act 
of  ordination ;  and  it  will  accordingly  be  found  that  they 
who  have  undertaken  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the 
defence  of  the  ruling  elders,  plead  for  their  participation  in 
the  act  of  ordination  upon  principles  that  are  utterly  sub- 
versive of  the  true  distinction  between  the  preaching  and 
the  ruling  elder. 

We  do  not  enter  at  present  more  particularly  into  the 
argument  founded  upon  the  use  of  the  term  presbyter  in 
the  New  Testament ;  for  this  argument  so  far  as  it  has  any 
bearing  upon  the  question  under  discussion  has  no  force 
except  as  it  tends  to  obliterate  all  distinction  between  the 
two  classes  of  elders.  The  same  reasoning  which  proves 
that  ruling  elders  ought  to  impose  hands  in  ordination, 
proves  also  that  they  ought  to  teach.  The  ruling  elder,  it 
is  contended  is  a  scriptural  presbyter,  a  scriptural  bishop, 
and  as  presbyters  and  bishops  ordain,  by  the  impositon  of 
hands,  therefore  ruling  elders  must  impose  hands.  So  also 
the  scriptural  presbyter  or  bishop  must  be  apt  to  teach; 
they  that  had  the  rule  over  the  church  were  also  they  who 
spoke  unto  them  the  word  of  God.  It  is  easy  therefore,  by 
the  change  of  the  middle  term  of  the  above  syllogism,  to 
construct  one  which  would  prove  that  it  was  one  of  the 
functions  of  the  ruling  elder  to  preach  the  word.  When 
they  who  are  now  seeking  their  ends  through  the  distortion 
of  our  standards,  shall  seek  to  change  the  standards  them- 
selves upon  the  ground  that  they  are  not  consistent  with 
scriptural  teaching,  we  shall  be  ready  to  enter  with  all  mi- 
nuteness into  this  discussion.  In  the  mean  time  the  single 
question  before  us  now  is,  what  is  the  presbyterianism  of 
our  constitution  ?  And  the  language  of  the  instrument  it- 
self, interpreted  by  the  collation  of  one  part  with  another, 
and  illustrated  by  other  formularies  from  which  it  was  com- 
piled, and  by  the  undoubted  practice  of  its  founders,  leaves 
no  room  for  doubt  in  an  unprejudiced  mind,  that  it  was  not 
within  the  intent  of  the  rule  upon  that  subject,  that  ruling 
elders  should  unite  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  ministers. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  has  attempted  to  invalidate  the  histori- 
cal argument,  drawn  from  the  practice  of  other  churches, 
and  this,  as  might  have  been  expected,  is  much  the  weakest 
part  of  his  essay.  He  who  sets  out  to  find  in  history  that 
which  never  existed,  is  very  apt  to  lose  his  way.  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge, "  the  course  of  whose  studies,"  as  he  informs  us, 
"  has  not  left  him  ignorant  of  the  sentiments  of  God's  people 


16 

in  past  times,"  avows  his  belief  that  the  teaching  of  other 
reformed  churches  furnishes  more  in  favour  of  his  position 
than  against  it.  How  well  he  has  sustained  this  belief,  our 
readers  may  judge  for  themselves. 

He  refers,  in  the  first  instance  to  the  Reformed  churches 
of  France  and  Geneva.  In  these  churches  he  admits  that 
ordination  was  performed  by  ministers,  but  attempts  to 
show,  by  an  argument  that  may  be  safely  left  to  do  its 
work  unhindered,  that  the  authority  of  this  example  is  in 
favour  of  the  participation  of  ruling  elders  in  this  service 
among  us. 

He  then  passes  to  what  he  terms  "  the  most  remarkable 
confession  to  which  the  Reformation  gave  birth,"  the  second 
or  latter  Helvetic  confession.  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  of 
this  confession,  which  treats  of  the  ministry  of  the  church,  it 
is  said  that  "they  who  are  chosen  shall  be  ordained  by  elders, 
with  public  prayers  and  imposition  of  hands."  But  before 
the  meaning  of  this  can  be  comprehended  it  must  be  under- 
stood who  are  meant  by  elders.  In  a  preceding  paragraph, 
after  giving  and  defining  the  terms  applied  to  the  ministers 
of  the  church  in  the  New  Testament,  it  adds,  "  Ucebit  ergo 
nunc  ecclcsiariim  tninisiros  nuncupare  Episcopos,  PreS' 
hyteros^  Pastores^  at  que  Doctores  ;^^  it  is  therefore  proper 
now  to  call  the  ministers  of  the  churches,  Bishops,  Presby- 
ters, Pastors,  and  Teachers.  The  term  elders  or  presbyters 
is,  therefore,  one  of  several  terms  that  may  be  appropriately 
employed  to  designate  the  ministers  of  the  church.  What 
then  were  the  peculiar  functions  of  ministers?  This  is 
made  perfectly  apparent.  In  page  510  of  the  same  chapter, 
it  is  said:  '■'■  Data  est  omnibus  in  ecclesia  minist?ns  una 
et  aequalis  potestas  sive  functio,''  to  ail  m,inisters  of  the 
church,  one  and  the  same  power  or  function  is  given. 
And  again,  ^'officia  ministoj-um.  sunt  varia,  quae  tanien 
plerique  ad  duo  rcstringunt,  in  quibus  omnia  alia  compre- 
henduntur,  ad  doctrinam  Christi  evangclicam  et  ad  legi- 
tim,am  sacramentorum  administrationem  f  the  duties  of 
ministers  are  various,  though  they  are  generally  restricted 
to  tiuo,  in  luhich  all  the  rest  are  comprehended,  namely, 
teaching  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  the  lawful 
administration  of  the  sacramejits.  Through  tiie  whole 
chapter  it  is  apparent  tliat  the  ministers  of  the  church,  of 
whom  it  treats,  are  such,  and  such  only,  as  are  authorized  to 
preach  the  word,  and  administer  the  sacraments.  It  says  not 
one  word,  directly  or  indirectly,  respecting  any  other  class  of 
ministers  or  rulers.     The  existence  of  ruling  eiders  is  not 


17 

once  hinted  at  throughout  the  document.  It  affirms  that 
ordination  shall  be  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 
elders — that  elders  is  one  of  the  terms  appropriately  applied 
to  ministers — and  that  ministers  are  they  whose  chief  func- 
tions are  to  preach  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  Christ  and 
administer  the  sacraments.  It  must  require  optics  peculiarly 
constituted,  to  discern  in  all  this  any  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  participation  of  ruling  elders  in  the  imposition  of  hands. 
It  teaches  the  same  doctrine  that  is  found  in  the  standards 
of  our  own,  and  of  all  other  churches,  that  induction  into  the 
office  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments,  should  be 
performed  by  those  who  are  themselves  incumbents  of  the 
same  office. 

We  are  next  referred  to  the  second  book  of  discipline  of 
the  Scottish  church,  which  affirms  that  "  ordination  is  the 
separation  and  sanctifying  of  the  person  appointed  to  God, 
and  his  kirk,  after  he  is  well  tried  and  found  qualified,"  and 
that  "the  ceremonies  of  ordination,  are  fasting,  earnest 
prayer,  and  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  eldership." 
"  Such,"  Dr.  Breckinridge  adds,  "  is  ordination  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  that  venerable  church  whose  standards  have 
furnished  so  large  a  portion  of  our  own ;  and  such  it  is, 
essentially  as  held  by  all  the  Reformed  churches — and  I  may 
add  by  the  primitive  and  apostolic  church."  And  this  is, 
as  we  maintain,  precisely  the  doctrine  of  our  standards. 
The  same  language  in  substance  is  employed,  and  the  same 
question  arises  here  as  in  the  interpretation  of  our  own  di- 
rectory ;  what  does  this  language  mean  ?  what  is  the  doc- 
trine taught  ?  It  sheds  less  light  upon  the  subject,  than 
upon  the  difficulties  by  which  the  reasoner  feels  himself  to 
be  environed,  when  he  attempts  to  fortify  his  interpretation 
of  an  ambiguous  phrase  by  reference  to  one  of  precisely 
equivalent  import.  "The  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery,"  and  "the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  elder- 
ship," inasmuch  as  they  differ  from  each  other  only  in 
sound,  undoubtedly  mean  the  same  thing  :  but  what  is  this 
one  thing  which  they  bath  mean  ?  What  was  intended  by 
the  "  hands  of  the  eldership,"  in  the  second  book  of  disci- 
pline, is  clearly  made  known  by  cotemporary  writers  who 
treat  expressly  of  the  subject.  Calderwood,  in  the  Altare 
Damascenum,  pubUshed  in  1623  says  that  the  imposition  of 
hands  "is  confined  to  pastors  or  teaching  elders  only,"  and 
expressly  justifies  the  consistency  of  this  usage  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  directory.     Samuel  Rutherford  in  his  "  Peace- 

3 


18 

able  Plea  for  Paul's  Presbytery  in  Scotland,"  published  in 
1642,  says,  "everywhere,  in  the  word,  where  pastors  and 
elders  are  created,  there  they  are  ordained  by  pastors.     .     . 

.  .  Ordination  of  pastors  is  never  given  to  people  or 
believers,  or  to  ruling  elders,  but  still  to  pastors."  To  the 
same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Alexander  Henderson,  and 
of  James  Guthrie.* 

There  is  no  room  left  for  doubt  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
second  Book  of  Discipline,  that  venerable  standard  which 
"  was  drawn  up  by  Andrew  Melville,  adopted  by  all  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the  kingdom,  and 
made  the  basis  of  more  numerous  and  solemn  national 
acts  than  any  other  paper,  perhaps,  of  merely  human  ori- 
gin." This  book  teaches  the  exact  doctrine  which  we 
maintain,  that  ordination  is  to  be  performed  by  the  impo- 
sition of  the  hands  of  the  eldership,  meaning  thereby 
preaching  elders.  We  have  thus,  not  only  the  example  of 
the  Scottish  Church,  ccnfirming  us  by  the  conclusions  to 
which  the  ablest  men  of  the  day  arrived,  at  a  period  which 
peculiarly  called  for  a  thorough  sifting  of  the  principles  of 
church  organization  ;  but  what  is  still  more  important  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  precise  question  before  us,  we  find  that  in 
the  standards  which  are  admitted  to  "  have  furnished  a 
large  portion  of  our  own,"  the  phrase  "imposition  of  the 
hands  of  the  eldership"  had  acquired  a  settled  mean- 
ing as  early  as  the  year  1578. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  declares  that  it  seems  to  him  "  the  very 
height  of  absurdity  and  an  absolute  contempt  of  common 
sense,  for  any  one  to  contend,  that  according  to  the  princi- 
ples and  the  very  terms  of  this  instrument,  ruling  elders 
are  not  permitted  to  impose  hands  in  the  ordination  of  min- 
isters of  the  word."  And  yet,  in  the  light  of  the  authori- 
ties above  cited,  it  would  be  so  plain  an  affront  to  common 
sense  to  deny  that  the  principles  and  the  terms  of  this  in- 
strument were  intended  to  exclude  ruling  elders  from  taking 
part  in  the  act  of  ordination,  that  no  one  we  suppose  will 
henceforth  presume  to  call  it  in  question.  It  was  univer- 
sally understood  by  the  men  who  framed,  adopted,  and 
used  this  instrument,  that  it  confined  the  imposition  of 
hands  to  preaching  elders.  If  men  who  use  language  are 
not  to  be  denied  the  privilege  of  explaining  what  sense 

*  Sec  thcsp  authors  cited  in  the  appendix  to  Dr.  Miller's  Sermon  on  the 
oiGcc  of  the  ruling  elder,  p.  126. 


19 

they  attach  to  their  own  terms,  then  the  "  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  the  eldership,"  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  refers 
exclusively  to  preaching  elders.  It  was  in  this  sense  that 
the  church  understood  these  words ;  in  this  sense  they 
passed  into  the  Westminster  Directory,  and  into  our  own 
standards.  Through  a  period  of  two  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  years,  during  which  this  language  has  been  employed, 
in  the  rite  of  ordination,  no  doubt  has  existed  as  to  its  true 
meaning.  And  are  we  now  to  be  told  that  during  all  this 
time  the  men  who  compiled  and  used  the  church  standards 
wliich  have  prevailed,  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of 
their  own  words  ?  Is  a  purely  verbal  argument,  founded 
upon  nothing  higher  or  deeper  than  a  mere  jingle  of  words, 
to  be  considered  as  of  weight  in  determining  that  the  true 
intent  of  language  is  one  which  they  who  employed  that 
language,  have  disavowed  by  all  their  writings  and  in  all 
their  acts  ? 

Greater  violence  even,  than  in  the  cases  already  reviewed, 
is  needed  so  to  torture  the  standards  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly as  to  make  them  utter  the  desired  response.  There  is 
of  course  no  doubt  as  to  the  judgment  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly respecting  the  point  in  debate.  They  have  expressly 
decided  that  ordination  shall  be  "by  imposition  of  hands,  and 
prayer,  with  fasting,  by  those  preaching  presbyters  to  whom 
it  doth  belong."  They  have  made  this  matter  so  clear  that 
there  is  no  room  left  for  a  play  upon  words.  The  Directory 
for  the  ordination  of  ministers  states,  in  general  terms,  an- 
alogous to  the  language  employed  in  our  book,  that  "  the 
Presbytery,  or  the  ministers  sent  from  them  for  ordination, 
shall  solemnly  set  him  apart  to  the  office  and  work  of  the 
ministry,  by  laying  their  hands  on  him,"  but  this  is  else- 
where and  more  than  once,  limited  to  preaching  presbyters. 
"  The  preaching  presbyters  orderly  associated,  either  in 
cities  or  neighbouring  villages  are  those  to  whom  the  impo- 
sition of  hands  doth  appertain,  for  those  congregations 
within  their  bounds  respectively."  To  evade  the  force  of 
this  example.  Dr.  Breckinridge  contends  that  this  Directory 
teaches  an  entirely  different  doctrine  respecting  ordination 
from  that  which  we  maintain.  Citing  the  declaration  that 
"  every  minister  of  the  word  is  to  be  ordained  by  imposi- 
tition  of  hands,  and  prayer,  with  fasting,  by  those  preaching 
presbyters  to  whom  it  doth  belong,"  he  asserts  tliat  this  re- 
quires us  to  go  nmch  further  than  has  yet  been  contended 
for,  for  not  only  imposition  of  hands,  but  ordination  itself 


20 

is  here  explicitly  declared  to  belong  to  preaching  presbyters ; 
and  he  adds  the  significant  hint,  that  it  will  not  be  long  be- 
fore this  authority  will  be  quoted  to  prove  that  preaching 
elders  only,  have  any  concern  with  the  whole  process  of  or- 
dination. "  Is  that,"  he  asks,"  the  doctrine  of  our  church." 
Again  he  quotes  the  declaration  of  tbc  Directory,  that  "the 
power  of  ordering  the  whole  work  of  ordination  is  in  the 
whole  Presbytery,"  vv^ith  the  subsequent  qualification  that 
"  the  preaching  presbyters  .  .  .  are  those  to  whom  the 
imposition  of  hands  doth  appertain  ;"  and  from  this  he 
infers  that  the  business  of  the  whole  Presbytery  is  only  to 
order  the  work  of  ordination,  and  that  it  is  the  preaching 
presbyters  who  ordain.  And  again  he  demands,  "  is  this 
our  system  ?"  We  answer,  that  the  system  of  the  West- 
minster Directory,  according  to  the  clear  and  palpable 
meaning  of  the  instrument  itself,  is  undoubtedly  our  pre- 
cise system,  neither  more  nor  less.  The  "  ordering  of  the 
whole  work  of  ordination"  which  it  gives  to  the  whole 
Presbytery,  will  not  be  lessened  in  its  meaning  by  the  dis- 
paraging "o;i/y"  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  prefixed  to 
it.  The  whole  Presbytery  are  to  order  or  to  determine 
the  entire  work,  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  the  can- 
didate, and  decide  whether  he  shall  be  ordained  ;  but  the 
executive  acts  by  which  their  decision  is  actually  carried 
into  effect,  the  prayers,  the  exhortations,  the  imposition  of 
hands,  are  to  be  performed  by  the  preaching  presbyters. 
Such  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  this  directory,  and  such  pre- 
cisely is  the  doctrine  of  our  standards.  The  intent  of  the 
instrument  itself  is  so  clear,  that  it  needs  no  elucidation. 
If  any  confirmation  were  necessary,  it  could  be  found  abun- 
dantly in  the  debates  of  the  Assembly,  attending  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Directory  ;  and  in  contemporary  expositions  and 
defences  of  the  form  of  government  which  they  established. 
In  the  Jus  Divinum  Ministeri  Evangelici,  or  the  divine 
right  of  the  gospel  ministry,  we  find  the  whole  matter  of 
ordination,  in  its  substantive  and  formal  part,  treated  at 
length.  This  work  was  published  in  1654,  by  the  Pro- 
vincial Assembly  of  London  ;  it  was  subscribed,  Novem- 
ber 2,  1653,  in  the  name  and  by  the  appointment  of  the 
Assembly,  by  the  Moderator,  Assessors  and  Scribes,  one  of 
the  latter  of  whom  was  Matthew  Pool.  In  the  Xlllth 
chapter  of  this  work,  entitled,  "  Wherein  the  fourth  asser- 
tion about  ordination  is  proved,  viz.,  that  ordination  of 
ministers  ought  to  be  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery,"  we  find  the  following  question  and  answer  : 


21 

"  Question  4.  What  part  hath  the  ruHng  elder  in  ordina- 
tion. 

^'Answer.  Supposing  that  there  is  such  an  officer  in  the 
church  (for  the  proof  of  which  we  refer  the  reader  to  our 
vindication)  we  answer,  that  the  power  of  ordering  of  the 
whole  work  of  ordination  belongs  to  the  whole  Presbytery, 
that  is,  to  the  teaching  and  ruling  elders.  But  imposition  of 
hands  is  to  be  always  by  preaching  presbyters,  and  the 
rather  because  it  is  accompanied  with  prayer  and  exhorta- 
tion, both  before,  in,  and  after,  which  is  the  proper  work  of 
the  teaching  elder."  Here  is  the  same  phraseology  that  is 
employed  in  the  Directory,  and  its  meaning  is  placed  be- 
yond the  reach  of  cavil.  The  system  here  taught  is,  we 
repeat  it,  our  system.  The  decision  of  every  question  con- 
nected with  each  particular  case  of  ordination  is  vested  in 
the  whole  Presbytery,  and  the  formal  act  or  acts  by  which 
the  decision  is  declared  and  carried  into  effect,  is  placed  in 
the  hands  of  the  teaching  elders. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  Dr.  Breckinridge  attempts  to  in- 
validate the  authority  of  the  Westminster  Directory  on  the 
ground  that  its  provisions  for  ordination  were  extemporane- 
ous, devised  confessedly  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  a  particu- 
lar crisis  and  of  course  not  adapted  to  a  different  state  of 
things.  We  prefer  quoting  his  own  words  upon  this  head, 
fearful  that  any  paraphrase  which  we  might  make  of  them 
would  necessarily  pass  with  the  reader  for  a  caricature. 
After  citing  from  the  Directory  the  passages  to  which  we 
have  already  referred,  he  adds  :  «  The  two  heads  of  Doc- 
trine and  Power  under  which  the  foregoing  statements 
occur,  are  then  thrown  together;  and  under  the  11th  and 
12  th  sections  of  this  united  head  we  have  these  two  impor- 
tant propositions,  '  In  extraordinary  cases  something  ex- 
traordinary may  be  done There  is  at  this 

time,  an  extraordinary  occasion  for  a  way  of  ordination 
for  the  present  supply  of  ministers.''  True  enough,  sir; 
but  it  sets  the  whole  matter  on  a  new  foundation.  Are  we 
in  a  state  of  civil  war  ?  Have  we  no  church  courts  in  Ame- 
rica as  there  was  not  one  in  England,  when  this  Directory 
was  drawn  up  ?  Do  our  fifteen  hundred  ministers,  and 
two  thousand  churches  furnish  no  present  supply  of  minis- 
ters to  constitute  a  single  Presbytery  ?"  This  has  no  mean- 
ing unless  it  be  to  disparage  the  directions,  already  quoted, 
respecting  ordination,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  framed 
to  meet  a  special  exigency,  there  being  at  that  time  no  eccle- 


22 

siastical  court,  regularly  constituted  in  England.     Bnt  were 
there  no  courts,  with  ruling  elders  a  constituent  portion  of 
them,  in  Scotland,  to  which  no  less  than  to  England,  regard 
was  had  in  the  compilation  of  these  directions  ?     Do  they 
not  in  their  own  nature,  and  in  express  terms,  contemplate 
a  Presbytery  fully  formed  ?  It  is  true  that  this  instrument  un- 
der the  Doctrinal  part  of  Ordination,  which  precedes  the 
Directory,  after  laying  down  ten  principles  or  rules,  among 
which  is  one  limiting  the  imposition  of  hands  to  teaching 
elders,  adds  that,  "  in  extraordinary  cases,  something  extra- 
ordinary may  be  done,  until  a  settled  order  may  be  had,  yet 
keeping  as  near  the  rule  as  possible."     It  is  evident  that 
the  rule  befitting  a  settled  order,  and  to  which,  in  the  mean 
tmie,  as  near  an  approximation  as  possible  is  to  be  made,  is 
that  contained  in  the  ten  preceding  principles.     The  Direc- 
tory then  follows,  giving  minute  directions  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  this  rule  is  to  be  carried  out  in  practice,  under  a 
settled  order  of  things.      At  the  close  of  this,  it  adds, — 
"  Thus  far  of  ordinary  rule  and  course  of  ordination,  in  the 
ordinary  way  ;  that  which  concerns  the  extraordinary  way, 
requisite  to  be  now  practised,  followeth," — and  it  then  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  what  it  may  be  allowable  to  do  under  the 
present  exigency.     Had  the  restriction  of  the  imposition  of 
hands  to  teaching  elders  been  found  among  these  extraor- 
dinary tilings,  which  were  allowed  on  account  of  the  pre- 
sent distress,  we  should  not  of  course  cite  the  authority  of 
this   venerable   standard   in   favour   of  the   interpretation 
which  has  always  been  given  to  our  constitution.     We  are 
seeking  realities,  and  not  playing  with  the  mere  sounds  and 
shows  of  things.     The  only  two  points  that  have  any  con- 
ceivable relation  to  the  question  under  discussion  with  us, 
that  the  power  of  ordering  the  work  of  ordination  was  en- 
trusted to  the  whole  Presbytery,  and  that  the  authority  to 
execute  the  work,  when  ordered,  was  committed  exclusively 
to  teachuig  elders,  are  not  alluded  to  among  the  extraordi- 
nary allowances  that  were  to  be  permitted  because  no  Pres- 
byteries "could  be  immediately  formed  up  to  their  whole 
power  and  work."     This,  on  the  contrary,  was  the  perfect 
theory  and  practice  of  ordination,  the  complete  rule,  which 
might,  in  certain  particulars,  be  varied  to  suit  the  necessities 
of  the  times,  "  until  a  settled  order  might  be  had." 

And  yet  Dr.  Breckinridge,  after  specifying  some  of  the 
allowable  dejiartures  from  the  rule,  which  arc  all  given 
under  the  distinct  head  of  the  extraordinary  way  which  may 


now  be  practised,  asks,  "  Is  it  not  equally  manifest,  that  the 
whole  Directory  contemplates  the  extraordinary  posture  of 
affairs  then  actually  existing  around  them?"  We  answer 
that  this  is  about  as  manifest,  as  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  in  prescribing  the  method  now  pursued  in  the 
election  of  President,contemplated  the  adopting  act  of  the  seve- 
ral States  and  other  provisional  measures,  which  were  neces- 
sary to  carry  the  constitution  into  operation.  No  man  can 
read  the  Directory  without  seeing  at  once,  that  upon  the 
points  undei*  discussion,  and  upon  all  other  matters,  except- 
ing the  few  that  are  touched  upon  in  the  appendix  upon 
"  the  extraordinary  way,"  it  contains  the  matured  and  deli- 
berate judgment  of  the  body  respecting  what  is  orderly  and 
right  under  a  perfect  state  of  the  church. 

But  in  the  third  place,  Dr.  Breckinridge  attempts  a  higher 
strain.  He  aims  not  only  to  deprive  the  positive  teaching 
of  the  Assembly  of  its  due  weight,  but  to  make  them  utter 
a  contrary  doctrine.  To  effect  this,  must  of  course  require 
peculiar  powers  of  ventriloquism.  By  a  comparison  of  dates 
he  finds  that  the  Directory  for  Church  Government  was 
sent  in  to  the  Parliament  seven  months  after  the  Directory 
for  Ordination.  Hence  he  infers  that  this  work  contains 
"  the  more  matured  decisions  of  the  body — their  advice  for 
a  permanent  and  not  for  an  extraordinary  church  state." 
He  then  selects  from  this  work  certain  general  principles  of 
church  government,  such  as,  that  the  government  of  the 
church  is  in  the  hand  of  Assemblies,  that  these  Assemblies 
are  composed  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders,  and  that  many 
congregations  are  under  this  presby  terial  government ;  and 
from  these  he  argues  that  the  Westminster  Assembly,  in  its 
matured  judgment,  by  deciding  that  ruling  elders  are  of 
divine  right  a  constituent  portion  of  the  governing  assem- 
blies of  the  church,  have  decided  "  ex  vi  termini,  that  they 
must  unite  in  ordinations."  If  by  uniting  in  ordinations, 
is  meant,  that  ruling  elders  must  have  some  share  in  the 
work,  then  all  this  talk  about  the  matured  decisions  of  the 
body,  after  seven  months  study,  is  devoid  of  meaning ;  since 
the  Assembly  had  already  decreed  in  their  immature  direc- 
tory for  ordination,  that  the  power  of  ordering  the  whole 
work  was  in  the  hands  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders.  If  it 
means  that  ruling  elders  must  unite  in  executing,  as  well 
as  ordering,  the  whole  work,  then  we  say,  that  the  Assem- 
bly have  decided  no  such  thing,  ex  vi  termini,  unless  ter- 
mini means  a  determination  to  force  upon  their  language 


r\. 


'.■#VA.* 


24 

a  construction  which  it  was  never  intended  to  bear,  and 
which  it  does  not  legitimately  admit.  The  supposed  ad- 
vance in  knowledge  made  by  the  Westminster  Assembly 
during  the  seven  months  which  elapsed  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  directory  for  ordination,  upon  which  this  argu- 
ment rests,  is  of  course  destitute  of  the  shadow  of  a  founda- 
tion. There  is  nothing  in  their  later  work,  which  contra- 
dicts or  supersedes  any  thing  in  the  former.  They  were 
combined  together  and  adopted  as  the  form  of  government, 
in  England  and  Scotland.  The  decision  of  the  Assembly 
that  ruHng  elders  are  of  right  governors  of  the  church,  did 
not,  in  their  own  judgment  of  it,  decide  that  ruling  elders 
must  therefore  impose  hands  in  ordination.  Nor  does  it, 
ex  vi  termini,  include  this,  any  more  than  the  right  which 
every  member  of  congress  has  to  deliberate  and  vote  upon 
any  question  brought  before  them,  includes  the  right  to  join 
his  signature  to  that  of  the  speaker,  in  attestation  of  the 
bills  passed.  This  matter  is  really  too  plain  for  argument. 
The  doctrine  which  the  Westminster  Assembly  intended  to 
teach  respecting  ordination,  the  doctrine  which  they  do 
teach,  is  as  explicit  and  clear  as  it  is  within  the  compass  of 
language  to  make  it ;  and  the  alleged  inconsistency  between 
placing  the  whole  work  of  ordination  in  the  hands  of  all  the 
governors  of  the  church,  and  restricting  certain  formal 
parts  of  the  execution  of  the  work  to  one  class  of  those 
governors,  does  not  seem  to  us  worth  an  argument. 

By  the  process  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  employs  to  ex- 
tract historical  evidence  in  favour  of  his  position,  we  could 
prove  any  doctrine  or  practice  whatever.  He  first  deter- 
mines that  the  work  of  ordination  in  all  its  parts  and  pro- 
cesses, in  its  decision,  declaration,  and  attestation,  belongs 
of  necessity  to  the  governors  of  the  church.  Hence  if  the 
government  of  the  church  is  vested  in  teaching  and  ruling 
elders,  he  infers  that  ruling  elders  must  impose  hands  in  or- 
dination. In  whatever  standards  he  finds  that  the  work  of 
ordination  in  general  is  committed  to  the  governing  body 
in  the  church,  whatever  that  may  be,  he  sees  the  proof  of  his 
doctrine,  even  when  those  standards  in  other  parts  expressly 
contradict  it.  History  thus  furnishes  more  that  is  for  him 
than  against  him,  because  he  forces  upon  historical  docu- 
ments his  own  inconsequent  reasoning,  and  determines 
what  the  facts  of  history  actually  were  from  his  opinion  of 
•what  they  ought  to  have  been. 

The  discussion  into  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  enters  touch- 


25 

ing  the  influence  of  the  Westminster  standards  upon  the 
Cliiirch  of  Scotland,  has  no  relation  to  the  question  in  de- 
bate. We  have  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Scottish  and 
the  Westminster  standards  respecting  ordination  was  pre- 
cisely the  same.  The  second  ijoolc  of  Discipline,  and  the 
Westminster  Directory,  alike  place  the  power  of  ordination 
in  the  Presbytery,  and  reserve  the  imposition  of  hands  to  the 
preaching  elders.  It  is  of  no  avail  therefore  to  depreciate 
the  modern  Scottish  church  as  compared  with  the  ancient, 
seeing  that  upon  this  point  she  has  never  varied  her  doc- 
trine or  her  practice,  since  the  establishment  of  the  second 
Book  of  Discipline. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  asserts  that,  "it  would  be  easy  to  estab- 
lish the  same  doctrine  from  other  confessions — for  example, 
those  of  the  Bohemian  churches  of  1535  and  1575,  and  va- 
rious professions  of  the  Polish  and  Lithuanian  churches  of 
the  following  century."  Of  the  Bohemian  Confessions 
here  referred  to,  the  second  contains  not  one  word  respect- 
ing ordination  ;  and  the  first  has  only  the  following  sen- 
tence :  "  Praeterea  vitae  consuetudinem  honestam,  atqve 
ut  hi  probentur  prius,  turn  dernum  a  seyiioribus  facta 
precatione,  per  manuum  imposilionem  ad  hoc  muiius  in 
caetu  confirmentur.''  There  is  nothing  to  inform  us  who 
the  seniores  were,  except  that  throughout  the  article  in 
which  this  occurs,  entitled,  De  ordine  ecclesiastico,  seu 
praefectis  vel  mijiistris  ecclesiae,  there  is  not  one  word 
said  of  any  other  class  of  rulers  or  ministers  of  the  church 
than  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  preach  the  word  and  ad- 
minister the  sacraments;  and  the  conclusion  hence  is  irre- 
sistible, that  they  were  the  seniores,  who  were  to  offer  up 
prayer  and  impose  hands,  in  setting  others  apart  to  the  same 
ofiice. 

No  other  confession  is  specially  designated  as  lending 
aid  to  the  new  theory ;  but  we  find,  in  the  October  number 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  that  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge has  pressed  the  Belgic  confession  into  his  service. 
He  says,  "In  Art.  XXXI,  De  Vocatione  Ministrorum 
Ecclesiae,  of  the  last-named  confession,  it  is  explicitly  de- 
clared that  the  work  of  holy  ordination,  as  to  manner  and 
form,  is  prescribed  in  God's  word,  and  appertains  '  verbi 
ministris  et  senioribus  ecclesiae,'  and  that  by  it  ministers, 
elders  and  deacons  ought  to  be, '  conjirmari  in  muneribus 
suis  per  imposilionem  manuiwi.' ''  There  is  nothing  in 
his  article,  or  in  the   whole  confession,  which  bears  the  re- 

4 


26  r—^^ 

motest  resemblance  to  the  affirmation  which  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge has  extracted  from  it.  The  first  sentence  is  as  fol- 
lows. Credimus  Ministros,  Seniores.  et  Diaconos  debere 
ad  functiones  illas  suas  vocari  et  promoveri  legitima  ec- 
clesiae  vocatione,  adhibita  ad  earn  seria  Dei  hivocatione , 
atque  adhibitis  ccclesiae  siiffragiis,  ac  postea  confirmari 
in  mjcneribus  suis  per  ivipositionevi  mamnim.  eo  ordine 
et  modo,  qui  nobis  in  Verbo  Dei  ]jrescribitur.  The  only 
other  sentence  in  which  the  word  seiiiores  occurs,  is  that 
from  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  excerpted  the  phrase,  ver6i 
ministris  et  senioribits  ecclesiae.  Porro  ne  saiicta  haec 
Dei  ordif2atio,  ant  violetnr  aut  aheat  in  contemjitum,  de- 
bent  omnes  de  verbi  ministris  etsenioribns  eeclesiae  propter 
opns  ctii  incimibiiut,  honorijice  sentire  :  That  this  holy  or- 
dination of  God  may  not  bevndervahied  or  contemned,  all 
Tncn  ought  to  esteem,  highly  the  m,inisters  of  the  word  and 
the  elders  of  the  church,  on  account  of  the  work  to  ichich 
they  apjyly  them^selves.  By  what  curious  process  this  has 
been  transformed  into  an  explicit  declaration,  that  ordina- 
tion appertains  to  the  ministers  of  the  word  and  the  elders 
or  the  church,  we  leave  the  reader  to  surmise.  After  this 
exposition  of  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  has 
dealt  with  the  historical  documents  which  he  has  underta- 
ken to  expound,  we  need  not  fear  to  leave  his  assertion, 
that  he  could  easily  sustain  his  position  from  certain  other 
Polish  and  Lithuanian  confessions,  to  be  rated  at  its  just 
weight. 

The  attempt  to  extract  aught  from  history  in  favour  of 
the  innovation  urged  upon  us,  is  a  signal  failure.  It  re- 
mains a  fact,  to  which  nothing  contrary  has  been  shown, 
that  through  all  time,  in  all  countries,  and  by  all  Christian 
churches,  the  ordination  of  ministers  has  ever  been  ratified 
and  attested  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  ministers. 
The  Presbyterian  churches  of  England  and  Scotland,  from 
whose  formularies  ours  have  been  compiled,  practised  no 
other  mode  of  ordination.  Our  fathers,  who  drew  up  our 
constitution,  knew  of  no  other;  and  the  constitution  itself,  ac- 
cording to  the  only  consistent  interpretation  which  can  be 
given  to  its  language,  admits  of  no  other. 

In  maintaining  what  has  always  been  believed  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  our  standards,  we  have  not  felt  it  necessary  to 
interpolate  any  professions  of  our  sense  of  the  importance 
of  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  or  of  high  regard  for  the  in- 
telligence and  worth  of  the  present  incumbents  of  this 


27 

office  in  our  church.  We  feel  that  we  shall  best  manifest 
our  true  respect  for  the  heads  and  hearts  of  the  body  of  our 
elders  by  believing  them  to  be  inaccessible  to  the  arguments 
and  motives  addressed  to  them,  by  some  of  those  who  claim 
to  be  their  peculiar  friends. 

We  have  but  little  to  say  in  reply  to  Dr.  Breckinridge's 
argument  in  opposition  to  the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly 
respecting  the  constitutional  quorum  of  a  Presbytery.* 
The  constitution  of  the  church  declares,  that  "  Any  three 
ministers,  and  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present  belonging 
to  the  Presbytery,  being  met  at  the  time  and  place  ap- 
pointed, shall  be  a  quorum  competent  to  proceed  to  busi- 
ness." The  decision  of  the  last  Assembly  was,  "  That  any 
three  ministers  of  a  Presbytery,  being  regularly  convened, 
are  a  quorum  competent  to  the  transaction  of  all  business;" 
and  it  is  alleged  that  this  decision  is  in  direct  conflict  with 
the  constitutional  provision. 

It  is  argued,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  language  of  the 
book  implies  that  at  least  one  ruling  elder  must  be  present 
to  constitute  a  quorum;  since  as  "many  elders  as  may  be 
present"  can  never  be  construed  to  mean  no  elders.  But 
the  advantage  of  the  argument  from  the  apparent  meaning 
of  the  terms  in  which  the  rule  is  expressed,  is  clearly  in 
favour  of  the  construction  given  by  the  last  Assembly. 
«  As  many  elders  as  may  be  present  belonging  to  the  Pres- 
bytery," is  a  contingent  expression,  which  leaves  the  num- 
ber of  elders  unlimited  in  either  direction,  except  by 
their  right  to  sit  in  that  body.  All  belonging  to  it  may  be 
present,  which  is  the  limit,  in  one  direction ;  and  none  may 
be  present,  which  is  the  limit,  in  the  other  direction ;  and 
in  either  case,  if  three  ministers  are  present,  there  is 
a  quorum  of  the  body.  The  quorum  shall  not  be  hindered 
by  the  voluntary  absence  of  all  the  elders  in  the  one  case  ; 
nor  by  their  outnumbering  the  ministers  in  the  other.  This 
is  the  apparent  intent  of  the  rule;  it  is  the  natural,  un- 
forced meaning  of  its  terms.  In  defining  the  quorum,  it 
makes  it  to  consist  of  two  parts,  one  constant  and  the  other 
variable ;  and  the  variable  element  may  evidently  vary 
from  nothing  to  the  entire  number,  who  may  lawfully  be 
present.     This  is  to  us,  the  obvious  construction  of  the  rule  ; 

♦  This  question  has  been  so  largely  discussed  through  the  press,  that  it  is  the 
less  necessaiy  to  enter  into  at  length.  Dr.  Maclean,  in  a  number  of  essays  in 
the  Presbyterian,  has  examined  in  detail,  and  refuted  every  position  taken  by 
Dr.  Breckiniidge. 


•28 

and  we  are  confirmed  in  it,  becanse  with  this  construction 
we  can  see  a  reason  why  the  language  used  was  selected, 
but  none  at  all,  it'  it  was  intended  to  express,  that  at  least, 
one  elder  must  be  present.  The  language,  as  it  now  stands, 
leaves  the  number  of  elders  to  vary  I'rom  zero  upwards ;  if 
it  had  been  intended  to  fix  unity  as  the  lower  limit,  it 
would  have  been  altogether  easy  and  natural  to  have  ex- 
pressed this  intent.  The  rule  could  liave  been  slated  so  as 
to  express  this  with  absolute  precision,  in  as  few  or  fewer 
terms  than  it  now  contains.  That  the  purpose  of  the  rule 
was  as  construed  by  the  Assembly  is  further  apparent  from 
the  practice  under  it.  Abundant  evidence,  such  as  cannot 
be  called  into  dispute,  has  been  furnished  ironi  the  records 
of  our  Presbyteries,  that  meetings  have  been  held  and  busi- 
ness transacted,  witliout  the  presence  of  any  ruling  elder. 
But  few  such  meetings  can  occur  now  in  our  old  Presby- 
teries. The  facilities  for  attendance  upon  their  meetings  are 
such  that  in  all  ordinary  cases  one  or  more  ruling  elders  will 
be  present.  Tiie  practical  interests  involved  in  the  settle- 
ment of  this  question,  which  are  magnified  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge into  the  wide  diflerence  "  between  an  aristocratical 
hierarchy  and  a  free  Christian  commonwealth,"  are  literally 
nothing  at  all ;  except  that  for  our  frontier  settlements,  and 
for  missionaries  in  foreign  lands,  the  received  construction 
of  the  rule  might  often  be  convenient  and  sometimes  neces- 
sary, to  enable  them  to  obtain  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery. 
If  a  change  in  the  rule  were  sought,  in  the  mode  prescribed 
by  the  constitution,  except  for  the  cases  named,  we  do  not 
suppose  that  much,  if  any,  practical  inconvenience  would 
result  from  making  it.  But  if  the  change  is  demanded  ou 
such  grounds  as  are  urged  in  opposition  to  the  Assembly's 
decision,  and  if  made,  is  to  be  considered  as  sanctioning  the 
principles  contended  for,  then  the  question  before  us  is 
nothing  less  than  a  radical  revolution  in  our  whole  system. 
The  free  Christian  commonwealth  of  Dr.  Breckinridge 
is  nothing  else  than  parochial  presbyierianisni — the  go- 
vernor or  ruling  elder  of  the  church  being  the  chief  offi- 
cer, the  only  one  requiring  ordit)ation,  who  may  also  be 
designated  and  employed  as  a  teacher,  if  in  addition  to  his 
gifts  for  ruling,  he  be  judged  to  possess  also  the  gift  of 
teaching, — and  the  bench  of  ruling  elders  of  each  particular 
church  being  fully  empowered  to  license,  ordain,  and  trans- 
act all  other  business  that  a  Presbytery  may  lawfully  do. 
This  is  a  distinct  and  intelligible  system.     It  is  that  to  which 


29 

all  the  distinctive  principles  advocated  by  Dr.  Breckinridge 
plainly  lead.  But  it  is  not  our  system;  and  the  church,  we 
trust,  will  pause  and  deliberate  long  before  she  will  be 
ready  to  adopt  it. 

The  necessary  presence  of  ruling  elders  to  constitute  a 
quorum  is  argued,  in  the  second  place,  from  the  definition 
of  a  Presbytery,  which  makes  it  to  consist  both  of  minis- 
ters and  ruling  elders.  Ruling  elders  are,  therefore,  held 
an  essential  element,  not  only  of  a  Presbytery,  but  of  a  le- 
gal quorum  of  Presbytery.  The  only  force  of  the  reason- 
ing under  this  head,  resides  in  the  confusion  of  these  two 
perfectly  distinct  things.  If  a  meeting  of  Presbytery  could 
be  held  under  the  compulsory  exclusion  of  ruling  elders 
commissioned  to  attend,  if  the  received  construction  of  the 
rule  involved  this,  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  it  would  be 
in  conflict  with  the  principles  of  our  constitution.  And  it 
will  be  found  that  every  plausible  argument  upon  the  other 
side,  and  all  the  fanfaronade  about  hierarchy,  and  freedom, 
and  priestly  usurpation,  are  founded  upon  the  quiet  assump- 
tion that  such  is  the  effect  of  the  interpretation  given  to  this 
rule.  Ruling  elders,  if  there  be  any  within  the  district 
covered  by  the  Presbytery,  constitute  a  portion  of  that  body, 
and  no  lawful  meeting  can  be  held,  no  business  of  what- 
ever kind  transacted,  without  an  opportunity  afforded,  to 
all  who  may  lawfully  partake  in  its  deliberations  and  acts, 
to  be  present  and  assist ;  but  if  they  choose  voluntarily  to 
absent  themselves,  then,  that  the  business  of  the  church  may 
not  suffer  through  their  absence,  it  is  provided  that  the 
ministers  who  may  be  assembled  may  proceed  to  business 
without  them.  It  will  be  perceived  at  once  that  there  is 
here  no  restraint  imposed,  no  subjection  established,  and,  of 
course,  no  power  bestowed.  Ruling  elders,  one  from  each 
congregation,  have  a  right  to  be  present  at  every  meeting 
of  the  presbytery.  That  right  is  left  untouched.  And  this 
is  a  hierarchy  !  These  are  slight  materials  out  of  which  to 
compose  the  horrid  picture  of  the  church,  subjected  to  the 
rule  of  "  three  ministers  without  charge,  who,  it  may  be, 
have  forsaken  their  covenanted  calling." 

If  it  could  be  shown  that  there  was  anything  in  our  book, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  in  reason,  requiring  that  the 
quorum  of  a  body,  which,  when  fully  form.ed,  was  com- 
posed of  different  classes,  must  of  necessity  embrace  some 
members  of  all  those  classes,  the  question  would  be  decided 
that  our  rule  ought  to  have  been  made  to  mean  what  Dr. 


30 

Breckinridge  maintains  that  it  does  mean.  But  this  has 
not  been  shown.  On  the  contrary,  our  book,  in  providing 
for  the  action  of  a  chuch  session  when  no  minister  may  be 
present,  and  for  a  quorum  of  the  General  Assembly  when 
no  ruUng  elders  may  be  present,  distinctly  sanctions  the 
principle,  that  a  quorum  of  a  body  composed  of  two  classes 
may  be  formed  entirely  of  one  of  those  classes.  The  ex- 
pediency of  the  case  furnishes  no  argument  against  our  in- 
terpretation, inasmuch  as  there  nev^er  have  been  any  diverse 
interests  betweeen  the  ministers  and  elders  of  our  church, 
nor  is  it  easy  to  conceive  how  any  such  can  legitimately 
arise.  They  are  not  adverse  parties,  nor  is  there  anything 
in  the  practical  working  of  our  system  which  could  ever 
make  them  so.  And  if  this  were  not  so,  if  they  were  an- 
tagonistic parties,  the  quorum  rule  would  still  be  harmless, 
as  the  elders  would,  in  that  case,  take  care  to  exercise  the 
privilege  which  they  possess  of  being  always  present,  and 
thus  prevent  their  priestly  adversaries  from  taking  advan- 
tage over  them.  It  has  also  been  shown,  that  in  the  com- 
mon judgment  of  men,  as  manifested  in  the  constitution  and 
rules  of  other  analogous  bodies,  it  has  never  deemed 
essential  to  the  constitution  of  a  quorum  that  it  should  em- 
brace some  of  all  the  classes  represented  in  the  body  ;  as  in 
the  English  House  of  Lords,  which  can  transact  business 
in  the  absence  of  all  the  spiritual  Lords. 

In  the  last  place,  it  is  argued  that  the  authority  of  pre- 
cedent is  opposed  to  the  authorized  interpretation  of  the 
quorum  rule.  Dr.  Breckinridge  quotes  under  this  head  the 
authority  of  Steuart  of  Pardovan,  who  declares  that  nei- 
ther the  constitution  of  the  church  nor  the  law  of  the  land, 
«  do  authorize  any  other  ecclesiastical  judicatory  but  As- 
semblies, Synods,  Presbyteries,  and  Kirk  Sessions,  or  their 
committees,  consisting  of  ministers  and  ruling  elders."  It 
■will  be  seen  at  once  that  this  does  not  touch  the  question 
in  debate.  This,  and  all  the  other  authorities  cited  by  Dr. 
Breckinridge  refer  only  to  the  proper  constitution  of  church 
courts,  and  we  are  all  agreed  that  these  must  be  composed 
of  ministers  and  ruling  elders.  They  allirm  nothing 
respecting  the  formation  of  a  quorum  of  these  courts.  This 
is  apparent  from  the  language  itself;  and  it  is  placed  beyond 
all  doubt  by  the  fact  that  Steuart  himself  quotes  from  the 
Directory,  "  That  to  perform  any  classical  act  of  govern- 
ment or  ordination,  there  must  be  present,  at  least,  a  major 
part  of  the  ministers  of  the  whole  classis."     So  that  the 


31 

quorum  of  a  classis,  or  Presbytery  of  the  Scottish  church 
did  not  require  the  presence  of  any  ruling  elders.  This  fal- 
lacy of  confounding  the  composition  of  a  body  with  the 
quorum  of  that  body,  runs  through  the  whole  of  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge's historical  argument,  and  vitiates  every  one  of  his 
conchisions.  A  proper  regard  to  this  distinction  rescues 
from  him  every  instance  which  he  has  adduced,  excepting 
that  of  the  condemnation,  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
1638,  of  six  preceding  Assemblies.  And  every  one  ac- 
quainted with  the  rudiments  of  the  ecclesiastical  history 
of  Scotland  knows  that  the  grounds  of  this  condemnation 
were  utterly  wide  of  the  question  which  we  are  discussing. 
It  was  not  because  there  were  no  ruling  elders  present  in 
those  Assemblies  that  they  were  set  aside,  but  because  there 
were  elders  present  and  voting,  who  had  no  lawful  com- 
missions. This  case  is  too  irrelevant  to  Avaste  words  upon. 
If  anything  can  be  established  by  testimony,  it  is  clear  that 
the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Scottish  church  are  in  agree- 
ment with  the  decision  of  our  last  Assembly.  In  addition 
to  other  authorities  which  have  been  abundantly  given  to 
this  etfect,  we  refer  to  the  correspondence  of  Robert  Wodrow, 
the  celebrated  historian  of  the  kirk.  Vol.  I.  p.  181.  In  a 
letter,  dated  Nov.  29,  1710,  we  find  the  following  passage. 
"  Thirdly,  The  rule  of  the  church,  though  elders  have  a 
share  in  it,  is  principally  committed  to  pastors.  The 
keys  of  the  kingdom  are  given  to  them.  They  are 
such  as  rule  over  the  people,  and  speak  the  word,  Heb.  xiii. 
7,  and  watch  for  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account,  ver. 
1 7 ;  none  of  which  places  to  me  have  any  relation  to  the 
ruling  elder;  and  therefore  they  can  act  in  absence  or 
under  the  loant  of  elders,  though  I  cannot  see  how  elders 
can  act  without  pastors." 

We  have  thus  in  favour  of  the  Assembly's  decision,  the 
obvious  meaning  ofthe  language  of  the  rule  ;  the  sanction 
by  our  book,  of  the  principle  involved,  by  its  provision, 
for  the  action  of  a  church  session,  and  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, in  the  entire  absence  of  one  of  the  classes  that  com- 
pose these  courts  :the  practice  of  our  own  church  in  times  past; 
the  concurrent  practice  of  the  Scottich  church ;  and  the 
analogies  of  other  bodies  constituted  in  like  manner.  We 
have  opposed  to  it,  certain  abstract  notions  about  the  rights  of 
ruling  elders,  which,  if  fairly  carried  out,  are  destructive  of 
our  whole  system  ;  and  certain  exaggerated  fears  about  the 
establishment  of  a  hierarchy,  by  means  of  a  harmless  rule 


32  . 

t 

of  convenience,  which,  restraining  no  right,  confers  no  power.  i 

We  cannot  doubt  that  the  next  Assembly  will,  if  need  be,  j 

affirm  the  decisions  of  the  last.     There  are  some  thmgs  \ 

which  the  church  ought  to  be  presumed  to  know,  and  among  ; 
these  surely  should  be  numbered  her  first  principles  of  truth, 

and  order.  j 


{ 


'3 
i 


I 


'^^TE  DUF:" 


i 


W  *  ^s^. 


t/   u 


i^tj;:.- 


'^^"^«^Sl'^ 


^•'^^ 


